Does anyone find the notion of pansexuality troubling?

OP

Original post by Viridiana

Maybe it just means they don't care what the gender is, like it's not a factor that plays a role in who is attractive for them.
Like, you like girls but their eye color doesn't determine if you'll find them attractive.
They like people and don't care about their gender?

But we all have preferences whether they are overt or not. How can one even claim that gender has *no* impact whatsoever on individual perceptions of attractiveness? Are they some sort of self-conscious deity that knows every single inner working of their mind?

I wouldn't particularly say that any single part of a woman would make it impossible for me to find her whole unattractive. I'm still just a normal heterosexual guy though -_-

See what I mean about it being a pointless distinction? It's hardly a unique sexuality. Put it this way: Are bisexuals who are 70% attracted to men and 30% attracted to women in need of a different term to describe them than bisexuals who are 90% attracted to men and 10% attracted to women?

Reply 3

Viridiana

12

Original post by TorpidPhil

But we all have preferences whether they are overt or not. How can one even claim that gender has *no* impact whatsoever on individual perceptions of attractiveness? Are they some sort of self-conscious deity that knows every single inner working of their mind?

I wouldn't particularly say that any single part of a woman would make it impossible for me to find her whole unattractive. I'm still just a normal heterosexual guy though -_-

See what I mean about it being a pointless distinction? It's hardly a unique sexuality. Put it this way: Are bisexuals who are 70% attracted to men and 30% attracted to women in need of a different term to describe them than bisexuals who are 90% attracted to men and 10% attracted to women?

I guess you have Kinsey scale for that.
Yeah sure they can find someone unattractive but it won't be because of their gender, it will be because they're ugly, mean or something. That's how I see it.

Reply 4

OP

Original post by Viridiana

I guess you have Kinsey scale for that.
Yeah sure they can find someone unattractive but it won't be because of their gender, it will be because they're ugly, mean or something. That's how I see it.

I don't think humans have access to that sort of knowledge. Do we really know precisely what features are making someone unattractive to us. If I showed you a picture of a person you found unattractive do you think you could identify precisely what sort of things would need to be changed in order to make them attractive? I couldn't and that's why I don't think the pansexual has any real justification for claiming that gender plays no role in their perception of sexual attraction.

And then this is complicated even further because I could ask how do you define gender? And that's a very very difficult and complicated question.

Reply 5

Antifazian

16

If you're heterosexual, what on earth makes you think your opinion on pansexuality matters? It's not something you need to 'agree' with, if that's how someone identifies then that's how they identify, your opinion is irrelevant. :rolleyes:

Reply 6

yo radical one

6

I am a man who has only ever had attraction for women and I could never be with a "woman" who was born a man, but...

I don't see the problem, there are sexes other than male and female (Google intersex if are interested) and these people have anatomy which is not typical of a man or women, so it makes sense for a word to exist to denote those who feel attraction for this type of person. This is what creates the distinction between bisexuality and pansexuality.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 7

OP

Original post by Antifazian

If you're heterosexual, what on earth makes you think your opinion on pansexuality matters? It's not something you need to 'agree' with, if that's how someone identifies then that's how they identify, your opinion is irrelevant. :rolleyes:

What a pointless comment. What on Earth makes you think anybody's opinion matters? I mean in theory everyone else could just put their fingers in their ears and scream la-la-la. Except they don't. We talk about things because there's a reason to do - it incites change and we wish to incite beneficial change.

If someone identifies as X, then that's how they identify - you say, well by the heavens above what a profound point you raise! Oh wait, that's just Leibniz's law.

My point of course wasn't to refute leibniz's law, rather it was to point out that in terms of sexual identity it may not always be appropriate because people are possible of mis-identifying themselves.

I certainly don't desire to insult or offend but I concede that claiming that somebody has mis-identified their own sexuality likely will result in offence. I will, if necessarily bite such a bullet though in the name of truth.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 8

OP

Original post by yo radical one

I am a man who has only ever had attraction for women and I could never be with a "woman" who was born a man, but...

I don't see the problem, there are sexes other than male and female (Google intersex if are interested) and these people have anatomy which is not typical of a man or women, so it makes sense for a word to exist to denote those who feel attraction for this type of person. This is what creates the distinction between bisexuality and pansexuality.

I don't see how you can claim your first paragraph. How do you know you "never" could be? There could be an otherwise perfect woman who persuaded you other wise and people change.

The problem is related to my first point. As a otherwise normally identifying heterosexual male I cannot claim that I would never be attracted to a non ordinary "female" gendered person. In fact I cannot claim, despite my great empirical evidence thus far, that I am only attracted to female people. Therefore does this make me pansexual? If it does then everybody of all sexualities are pansexual. That's stupid and requires us to give a proper definition of pansexual.

Reply 9

white boy

10

out of interest has anyone actually encountered these words and orientations other than on the internet? i feel like it's just for fat tumblrites who are having an identity crisis.

Reply 10

A5ko

.. and here I thought pansexual meant you like getting frisky in your kitchen.

Reply 11

HigherMinion

5

[video="youtube;wUyZGtLny5o"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUyZGtLny5o[/video]

I'll just leave this here... Antifazian exemplifies this segregative behaviour.

Reply 12

gonnagetrejected

isn't that just bisexual though?

when are we going to extend the lgbt into lgbbt with bestiality added into it? are we going to start throwing in incest while we're at it? maybe sex with cars too?

Reply 13

DiddyDec01

Original post by Antifazian

If you're heterosexual, what on earth makes you think your opinion on pansexuality matters? It's not something you need to 'agree' with, if that's how someone identifies then that's how they identify, your opinion is irrelevant. :rolleyes:

So this rule is only for heterosexuals?

Reply 14

Guru Jason

21

Original post by gonnagetrejected

isn't that just bisexual though?

when are we going to extend the lgbt into lgbbt with bestiality added into it? are we going to start throwing in incest while we're at it? maybe sex with cars too?

I was a bit confused to begin with but i think they mean people who are one sex but identify as another ie a man who believes they should have been born a woman and vice versa etc

Reply 15

DiddyDec01